38 Ways to Win an Argument from Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy

The Teaching Company ^ | Unknown | The Teaching Company

[shrinkermd]

Number thirty-six and thirty-eight are the most irritating.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I was in a CR/YD debate in college and this YD claimed being hard of hearing, rendering him unable to refute anything I said, and, further, to distort what I said. I wanted to punch this douchebag afterward, though I did think it was crafty.

[khnyny]

lol. bump for later read.

[gunnedah]

The Democrat Manifesto!

[MacDorcha]

#39- the catch-all. Be right, and be loud about it!

[gridlock]

Most Huckabee threads just advance to #38 immediately.

[Choose Ye This Day]

“The Argument Clinic”

bookmarking

[Hacklehead]

These are not ways of winning an argument. They just make the user look stupid.

[DeLaine]

Ron Paul supporters advance to #38 immediately!!!! (but I’m not arguing with you)

[Thickman]

ping as a reference guide

[TASMANIANRED]

Just for your amusement.

[maine-iac7]

38. Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

Appropriated and copied into the Communist Party Handbook, carried in the hip pockets of all dimRats

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Just the type of thing that someone like you would say, without any evidence (other than your say-so). I have to wonder who pays you to say things like that.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

This list of ‘techniques’ is so laced with logical fallacies it’s pathetic. This is the way the Left argues.

Anyone with some training in formal and syllogistic logic would destroy someone using many of these techniques.

The way to win an argument:
1. Know what you are debating — content. If a particular issue is important to you, make a cheat-sheet of ten pertinent, hard facts. Know where they came from. Include with that list a list of experts and their findings and in which those findings are recorded.
2. Know what you are debating — logic. Study the categories of argument (definition: is your opponent using the lexical def of a word or a stipulative def? Interpretation: is their full analysis limited by a particular viewpoint? Belief: are they arguing from something they can't prove but simply feel? Etc.). This makes it very easy to know what approach to take. You’d be surprised how many heated arguments arise out of conflicting understandings of a particular term. E.g., “global” does not mean localized, surface-level area. It signifies means a three-dimensional area (atmosphere, comprehensive surface area including altitudes that are climatically significant (i.e., where the snow-lines typically are), and ocean surface and ocean depths).
3. Stick to your argument.
4. Remain cool, calm, humorous.
5. Analyze your opponent’s argument through Socratic dialectics.
6. Don’t directly point out their contradictions. Let them discover their own. If they don’t, when you have to point out their contradictions, do so by means of a question (”Doesn’t this contradict what you said about...”). The more times they have to explain why contradictory premises are not contradictory, the tighter web they weave themselves into.
7. Keep your opponent on-track. A sure sign that they know they are out-gunned is the attempt to digress and rant and bring up the irrelevant. Say, in a friendly manner, “I’ve heard that before. We can address that later [after I trounce you on the point we’re debating]. But for now we’re talking about...”
8. Always ask where your opponent gets their statistics. If they can’t point directly to them, disregard them. A favorite trick of those who don’t know how to debate is to invent statistics that sound realistic.
9. Combine the elements of rhetoric to your advantage. Appeal to your opponent’s intelligence (in seeing that you are correct), to their sympathies (in seeing that their beliefs ultimately lead to damaging those they are trying to help), and to their emotions by not being a hot-headed brawler in debate. Talk reasonably and personally, even though you’re wondering what his head would sound like bouncing off the bar rail.

[gridlock]

(but I’m not arguing with you)

That was never five minutes just now...

[navyguy]

Agreed.

[cartan]

You're assuming that

1. You know what you are trying to prove.
2. You know that what you are trying to prove is correct.
3. You know how to prove it logically.
4. You have enough time to prove it.
5. The audience will understand your proof.
6. Your proof is complete.
7. All that matters is being right.

Well, that is easy. Everybody can win an argument then. Schopenhauer's list is about what to do in the remaining cases. All of those dirty tricks are used by skilled debaters to great effect. This is about winning the argument in the eyes of the audience, not about being right. If you recognize a dirty trick so quickly that you can reject it right away, it only means that your opponent didn't use it very well.

[Mad Dawg]

39. Pepper Spray
40. Strider Knife
41. Sig P226 in 357 Sig

These work purty good. Pricey though and you have to leave the country.

[TASMANIANRED]

Much of it sounds oh so very familiar.

Studied obfuscation on idiot savants?